Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The Mad, the Sad and the Ugly, SNP MP Natalie McGarry resigns the SNP whip, her ‘pal’ Shona McAlpine throws accusations about that WFI are ‘bullies’, and unpopular Nicola Sturgeon refuses to suspend McGarry, instead of being ‘statesmanlike’ Sturgeon yet again decides to ‘play the tradesman’, is this the "talent" who think they will lead Scotland to independence




















Dear All

Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said:

“A week is a long time in politics”.

He was right, especially when you are in the public spotlight and the reason isn’t a feel good story.

Yesterday, someone remarked to me that they didn’t like the way that I wrote my articles on the blog, while I was on twitter, which is fine; everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My blog isn’t to everyone’s taste, that being said, the BBC mob in London do stop by along with other news outlets to get a sense of what the public think regarding a situation or story of topical and possibility national interest, the George Laird view.

My mood tends to mirror the general public mood, sometimes even before they know what that mood should be themselves.

Other people however do like my blog, I do opinion, but the basis of my opinions is formed reading about fact. I keep saying that the most damaging thing in politics is the truth; the truth at its core remains pure.

In my last post, I said that Nicola Sturgeon wouldn’t suspend SNP MP Natalie McGarry.

George Laird right again.

Nicola Sturgeon didn’t suspend Natalie McGarry, but she should have done, her reason was that she didn’t have enough information in her possession.

Natalie McGarry resigned the party whip only hours after Nicola Sturgeon refused to suspend her, you see the SNP is run like a cult; her auntie is the Presiding Officer of Holyrood. The SNP is made up of various little family groups which along with some others control the party.

It’s a cult.

I wrote if Nicola Sturgeon wouldn’t do something about Natalie McGarry’s involvement in promoting a hate account on twitter whose theme was sexual intercourse with children, why should people think she would do anything regarding the present scandal?

Police are investigating allegations that £30,000 has gone missing from the accounts of prominent pro-independence group, Women for Independence. An internal audit showed that large sums raised by grass roots supporters were unaccounted for which is still a mystery at present.

Natalie McGarry has denied any wrongdoing, closed her twitter account to the public and isn’t answering any questions.

In the case of Tommy Ball, who recently pled guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court, I was told by Police that he stated that he had set up a parody account, he denied any wrongdoing; he has since closed his twitter account to the public and he isn’t answering any questions.

Here is another co-incidence regarding Natalie McGarry and Tommy Ball, both of whom had socialised together in the past, both removed themselves from the SNP in the ‘interests of the party’.

I am a firm believer in due process and justice, which is why on twitter; I have said that Natalie McGarry is innocent until proven guilty. I say this because despite the fact that I genuinely despise her with passion for what she did to me in the past, she is entitled to fairness and due process.

Even the worst in society deserve that in a democratic country, it is alleged that Women for Independence tried on several occasions to find out where the funds had gone by asking Natalie McGarry but she was unable to satisfy them with her answers. You would think if you were in such a position as her clearing this up would be a priority which supersedes all others.

You can't buy personal integrity like a tin of beans off the shelf at Asda!

Corporate governance is no laughing matter in any organisation regarding finance; people expect that records are kept and that those in charge dispense their responsibilities properly.

£30,000 isn’t a small sum of money, so where is the money?

McGarry was one of WFI’s Founding Members back in 2012 and was responsible for overseeing its finances it has been said. I read online that Shona McAlpine who was also named in my criminal witness statement regarding the Tommy Ball case has said the WFI are ‘bullies’.

During the night of the 18th September 2014 at the Scottish Referendum Count, I had occasion to report Shona McAlpine to Police Scotland, she marched up behind me screaming to get out of her way. The Police inspector said to me that they would take an incident report and keep an eye on her and Tommy Ball who was also in the hall.

I put no weight to anything Shona McAlpine says on any subject.  

Opposition parties, have rightly also focused on why Nicola Sturgeon refused to act, Sturgeon’s line was it was important to get a “balance” between expecting the highest standards of SNP parliamentarians and respecting “due process, fairness and a presumption of innocence.”

Okay, here is a question, if as Ms. Sturgeon says it was important to get a “balance” between expecting the highest standards of SNP parliamentarians and respecting “due process, fairness and a presumption of innocence”, why was Bill Walker suspended?

SNP MSP Bill Walker was facing a criminal investigation into smashing in women’s faces; did the SNP waive his right to presumption of innocence?

I would say that is a worthwhile question to put Sturgeon on the spot about, in the case of Walker, he was found guilty of 24 charges, at a time the SNP was trying to win the women’s vote during the independence referendum. Walker was as they say, ‘flung under the bus’; he was a liability to Nicola Sturgeon in her attempts to win women over to her cause.

Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s public services spokesman, said:

“Natalie McGarry is right to resign the SNP whip. It is disappointing that as the leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon didn’t act earlier. We now need to know who knew what, and when, in the SNP about these allegations. Nothing short of full transparency from the SNP will be accepted by the Scottish public.”

As to Jackie Baillie’s argument that the allegations may “cast genuine doubt” on McGarry’s election in May, having thought about it, sorry I can’t buy into that one. The intimidation tactics used by Nationalists against Margaret Curran in my mind do more to “cast genuine doubt” on Margaret Curran’s right to have a free and fair election as prescribed under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights  Act 1998 than this event.

At present allegations are been made, but that is all they are allegations, I am sure that the Labour Party would dearly love a by-election, but that won’t be happening in the foreseeable future. I wouldn’t be calling for a by-election because there isn’t evidence in the public domain to justify it on this issue at present. What is available so far doesn’t look too good for McGarry, but what is interesting that her time at WFI is I would suggest in doubt now regardless of the outcome.

It has been stated that several of the WFI national committee members who demanded a police investigation are SNP candidates for the forthcoming Holyrood election. I was once told several in Glasgow SNP hoped during the Cowdenbeath by-election that Natalie McGarry would lose; apparently some people in the SNP don’t like her. I can’t say I blame them, I met others from Labour and Conservatives who feel the same way about her but they tend to keep their own counsel private.

Natalie McGarry has Aamer Anwar as her solicitor, he said that he has allegedly instructed “forensic accountants to obtain all the necessary information” for Police Scotland and WFI.

If that is true I find that hilarious because I don’t think Police Scotland and the WFI will be having their investigations led by anyone other than themselves. I would assume that the WFI accounts wouldn’t be open to McGarry or her representatives at present unless she is charged by Police Scotland. Then she would have a legal right to a copy of all evidence collected during the course of a criminal investigation. Since she isn’t charged with a crime, she doesn’t have a right to anything as far as my understanding of human rights goes, except her personal data held by WFI.

So, what does her solicitor mean when he allegedly says he instructed “forensic accountants to obtain all the necessary information”?

Isn’t Natalie McGarry under a legal duty not to allow a third party access to WFI accounts unless that is approved by the board of Women for Independence?

Isn’t that one of the principles of corporate governance?

Natalie McGarry can hand over her data presumably by a DSAR, if that channel exists, but surely that doesn’t entitle her to hand over data regarding the WFI without proper authorisation?

Does Natalie McGarry already have authorisation by WFI to allow forensic accountants to conduct an investigation into their financial accounts?

I don’t remember reading anything in the public domain from WFI saying that there is a joint investigation by McGarry’s representatives and the Police. As far as I have read the WFI board have alleged they made repeated attempts to ask McGarry to explain away their concerns, when they were not satisfied with information they received, they called in the Police.

Finally, to return to Ms. Sturgeon for a moment, she said it was important to get a “balance” between expecting the highest standards of SNP parliamentarians and respecting “due process, fairness and a presumption of innocence.”

Nicola Sturgeon is a vile nasty shallow hollow inept and entirely vacuous woman devoid of principles and integrity in my opinion, to see her clutching at straws during her TV interviews, hopping from one foot to the other, tight mouthed and then squealing like a pig, gave me a few moments of amusement yesterday as it may have done for others in watching this unfolding saga.

SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon failed the leadership test yesterday; she played the ‘tradesman’ instead of the ‘Statesman’, a common fault in people who are common with lots of money who fail to rise to the occasion.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

6 comments:

Freddy said...

A couple of nice links in the herald George implying that senior members of the cult knew there was a problem. http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14100691.SNP_MP_s_bank_account_linked_to_indy_cash_row/?ref=mr&lp=1

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14100715.SNP_knew_about_questions_over_pro_indy_group_s_finances_for_weeks_as_MP_steps_down_from_party/?ref=twtrec now if the second link is correct it shows how much they care. Really the only way to get answers would be to have her up in court and the committee members answering questions under oath.

Stuart 64W said...

McGarry is in a deep hole, and so are the SNP!

WFI raised the issue with the SNP in March, that's two full months before May and the General election!

So why did the SNP apparently do nothing?

Bearing in mind that WFI spent 'Months' trying to get answers from both of them?

The SNP let McGarry stand for, and be elected to public office knowing that WFI had raised serious concerns about McGarry.

This smells really bad especially in the light of this from Newsnet Scotland;

http://newsnet.scot/?p=116006

"Common Space reported this evening that “Members of the pro-independence group have spoken of their disappointment when Natalie McGarry, MP for Glasgow East since May, failed repeatedly to respond to questions over the missing money.”

It added: “Commonspace was able to confirm that SNP MP Natalie McGarry had sole control over the PayPal account through which donations were made, and consequently was asked by WFI staff to account for the missing money, but failed to do so. The figure is estimated to be between £30,000 and £40,000.”

Despite the likes of 'Wings' risible attempts at deflection, the Nats can hardly complain;

"Opposition parties, and particularly Labour, are seeking to exploit the resignations. It is their right to do so. The SNP have taken a similar position with scandals involving Labour MPs and MSPs in the past."

Too damned right!

As what's sauce for the Goose...

G Laird said...

Hi Freddy

I think we have to see how the Police investigation goes, I am obviously seen as biased as I have a personal dislike for McGarry, but as readers know, it is for good reason which I have outlined in other posts.

Court under oath would be what many would like to see at this point I feel, if the evidence warrants it.

George

Anonymous said...

:) thats al I can say georgieboy

Crookie

Freddy said...

Just because you are biased don't mean your not right George :)

Anonymous said...

If Newsnet are reporting it in the manner above, then McGarry is toast methinks.